Lancia. Even now, it rolls off the tongue, sounds attractive, aspirational, stylish, innovative, luxury, indulgent, lively, maybe glamorous. Probably one of the greatest, and certainly one of the oldest and most innovative, European brands. Strong on engineering, strong on style, strong on being Italian. All you’d want in a great brand.

No. It is probably the worst example in recent years of a model name that didn’t transition from one language to another. In Italian, it means “gregarious” but in English, well, its connotations are sadly obvious and avoidable. And somehow, they define the car itself.

From the early years of the 20th century right through the 1960s, Lancia was amongst the most innovative makes, being the first to offer an electrical system, a monocoque chassis in 1922 and the first (mainstream) five-speed gearbox. V4 engines, rear mounted transmissions and independent suspension were all Lancia innovations, and the company, along with Citroen, were at the technical edge in Europe from the 1920s to the 1960s.

Cars like the Fulvia above show some of this very clearly–this is what a 1230cc V4, front wheel and attractive styling could get you in the late 1960s, alongside a mechanically similar saloon. Larger Lancias had the sort of histroy and assocation that any other brand would die for – just count the references to Lancia in this post about influential design.

Lancia had become part of Fiat in 1970, when the practically bankrupt company was rescued by the big brother in Turin. Lancia was effectively to become the Audi to the FIAT’s VW, or Triumph to FIAT’s Austin. Think of it as being a smart Italian suit to the British old school tie style of a Rover.

The first car to come after this was the 1972 Lancia Beta, which is remembered in the UK for one thing, and one thing alone: rust. The fair summary of the story is that the subframes and the box sections they mounted on corroded to such an extent that even relatively young cars were starting to fail the statutory annual inspection (known as the MoT test) required for all three year old cars. Once this was caught by the print and TV media in early 1980, it became one of the lead consumer stories of the year, and the whole saga blew right up in Lancia’s face.

It culminated with Lancia buying back almost as many Beta saloons as it could trace, anecdotally even scrapping sound cars. This, of course, was exactly what the consumer groups and press had demanded, and having done the right thing, Lancia still got beaten up in the press and in public perception. The quality reputation of mainstream Italian cars was already not that great (unfounded rumours of substandard Russian steel, electrical issues and a slightly fragile nature were often quoted) and has never really recovered. The Lancia brand was so tarnished, in the UK at least, that any subsequent recovery was barely credible.

The mainstream Lancia product offered at this time, apart for the dead in the water Beta, was the 1979 Delta hatchback, based on the Fiat Ritmo (or Strada in the UK) but with twin can engines and Guigaro styling. It offered anything a Golf did, with a bit of Italian passion and panache.

The Delta did well across most of Europe, helped by the great styling and from having found a niche in the market, as being not an Escort or an Astra(Kadett), but not a Golf either. In 1986, the Delta’s great rally career started, ultimately winning 46 world rally events, 6 team championships in 6 years and 4 drivers’ championships from 1987 to 1992. The cars that did this were the legendary, even immortal, Delta Integrale and Integrale Evoluzione.

Lancia offered a saloon version of the Delta, sold a little further upmarket, known as the Prisma. Like the earlier Beta range, the Delta and Prisma had adapted FIAT engines with Lancia-specific cylinder heads and injection systems.

In 1989, Lancia replaced the Ritmo-based Prisma with the new Dedra (above).

It was based on the then-new FIAT Tipo (above, another car I must CC when I can). The styling, penned by Ercole Spada (who’d also designed the E32 and E34 BMWs) was a significant step up from the very boxy and dated Prisma, recovering some of the gracefulness you’d expect of the Lancia brand.

The Delta, bolstered by motorsport successes, remained a strong seller until 1993, when it was replaced by the second generation car–effectively a Dedra hatchback.

Technically, it was the same story as the Prisma, with Lancia specific developments to the FIAT engine and running gear. Engines were a range of 1.6 to 2.0 4 cylinder petrol and diesel engines, some with turbocharging. The ultimate version was the Dedra Integrale, featuring a similar 170bhp 2.0 litre turbo and four wheel drive system as those found on the Delta Integrale 8V. There was also an estate version from 1996 until 2000, when the model range was replaced by the Lybra. The Tipo/Dedra also formed a basis for the first front wheel drive Alfa Romeo built in northern Italy–the Alfa 155, also styled by Spada.

The Dedra was never as premium as the BMW 3 series or Audi A4. In fact, it is only fair to consider it as a nicely trimmed, more comfortable, saloon version of the FIAT Tipo, rather than a BMW competitor. And therein lay one of the car’s main issues–FIAT offered a saloon version of the Tipo, known as the Tempra, which commanded a premium over the Tipo itself and was offered with high spec interior trim packages.

Perhaps the Dedra could be seen as a competitor to the plusher versions of the VW Jetta and Vento (the European name for the Jetta Mk3), Rover 400 series (which was never a mainstream competitor in the UK, where it valiantly tried to achieve semi-premium status) and the Volvo 460 and later S40. That’s without considering the Alfa Romeo 155–essentially the same car with an Alfa engine and distinct Alfa attitude.

The Dedra’s core market was Italy and other southern European markets, such as France, where I saw this example, as well as Switzerland. Sales in northern Europe, the traditional stronghold of German premium brands, were always slower.

In the UK, however, there was another issue–the legacy of the Beta rust saga had left the Lancia brand almost irreparably damaged and as the Dedra was aimed at a conservative and therefore older clientele, the Beta story was was still there in potential owners’ consciousness. Add to this the fact that the car was sold alongside FIATs in the same showroom, along with the brand’s limited model range compared with the likes of Audi or BMW, and slow sales can’t have been a great surprise.

In 1993, Lancia let it be known the next Delta, due in 1994, would not be offered with right hand drive and it was clear that the writing was on the wall for the Dedra. The other cars Lancia were peddling in the UK were the Y10 luxury supermini and the slow selling and by then dated Thema executive car, closely related to the FIAT Croma, Alfa Romeo 164 and SAAB 9000.

In 1994, Lancia left the UK, never to return. There is still a Lancia Delta, based now on the 2007 FIAT Bravo but with an extended wheelbase–similar to the Vauxhall Signum or Chevy Malibu Maxx–which was marketed in the UK as the Chrysler Delta from 2011 to last year, when it faded from the price lists, due to buyer apathy.

So, a great brand, laid low by a corrosion issue, then a great car, followed up by some slightly anonymous products, the last of which was called Dedra. The brand has died in the UK and remains on life support elsewhere, still seeking a real identity while having to rely on shared product with Chrysler. On The Continent, Lancia currently sells the Ypsilon, the Delta, the Flavia, better known as the Chrysler 200 convertible (soon to be discontinued), the Thema (rebadged Chrysler 300) and the Voyager, having taken over European marketing of Chrysler’s minivan.

So let me remind you of the name of that car again: Dedra, a comically accurate foreshadowing of the brand’s reputation and fortunes both in the UK and Europe in general. With a limited budget to compete with highly developed rivals in an era of increasing liberalized trade, little remains of the elegant, innovative company Lancia once had been, leaving enthusiasts of great cars today sitting quietly, shaking their heads.

70 Comments

Thanks for the executive summary on the downfall of Lancia. I do not ever recall their being here in the US, and had always figured that it was a successful, if small, brand in Italy/Europe. I had heard that Chrysler 300s were being marketed as Lancias, and assumed that the Chryslers were filing some very large shoes. But apparently not.

Sad to see a great old brand that has been completely hollowed out for want of decent product.

They didn’t have many dealers, but according to this Autoweek item, they didn’t pull out of the U.S. until 1982 (http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100521/collector/100529954). I remember many years ago hearing radio ads for the Lancia Beta Coupe. The voice talent was an Italian-American character actor whose face I can see in my mind’s eye, but whose name I don’t know.

Many European brands gave up on the U.S. market in the 80s and early 90s, but until then Americans could still buy Fiats, Alfas, Peugeots, AMC-built Renaults, Triumphs, Sterling-badged Rovers.

I recall seeing a Lancia exhibit on my annual visits to the NY Auto Show with my parents in the mid-60s, but I don’t remember seeing any on the road in South Jersey. Whoever imported them then (probably not the factory) likely gave up with the first round of safety and emissions standards, because Wikipedia says Fiat brought the brand back to the U.S. in 75 and imported them until 82.

In the 50s and 60s, you could probably find any European brand you wanted (including Borgward, Panhard, and Skoda), at least if you lived in the NY or LA areas. I had a couple of issues of fairly largish books that gave detailed specs, descriptions, and pictures of every imported brand sold in the U.S., and there were all sorts of obscure brands sold here then.

There was (by Fiat standards) a big push when the Lancia Beta arrived in the US, and there’s still more than a few of them around as collector cars. However, as small a Fiat US sales were, Lancia sales were even smaller, and I can’t remember them bringing in anything after the Beta. Once Fiat disembarked in ’82 or so, so did Lancia.

Oddly enough, in the US, Lancia never had a reputation for being a rust bucket. Or, at least, it’s reputation wasn’t any worse than anything else at that time. Plus it had the advantage of having the Vega over here to take that title.

Superb article, Roger. The downfall of Lancia is not to be celebrated, but it certainly must be chronicled. I hope at some point you can address the Gamma and Beta Coupe/HPE. Both are not without fault, but your sure touch will ensure an approach as balanced and informed as you have taken here. Much appreciation from this reader.

By the 1990s quality was in short supply at so many established brands of Europe, not only Lancia. I am not surprised i don’t see so many Volvo 460s, Alfa 155s or Vw Ventos around. Dedras were just few to begin with. Quite ironically, it was the VW that had the worst rust issues.

I think Lancia failed as a brand because it wasn’t distinctive enough, a sort Oldsmobile of Fiat.
I hitched a ride in Dedras succesor, Lancia Lybra. It seemed to be a good car with plush interior, low NVH levels, but these qualities were also to find in a high end Fiat. In the mean time the competition just got better and the new “fiery italian car” was the Alfa 156. Against it, the Lybra looked like a bad, stubby copy of a Mercedes w210. So i guess these days the brand dies a slow, natural death, if anything else doesn’t come along.

You’re right about the Olds analogy. To consider Fiat’s Italian marques, you have – in ascending order – Fiat, Alfa, Lancia, Maserati and Ferrari. When you look at GM’s CPOBC hierarchy, Lancia finds itself occupying the same middle ground as Oldsmobile.

Whereas in the past Lancia traded on superb engineering, solidifying the post-war GT and mastering FWD, all with a patrician edge, it now finds itself struggling to mean anything to the consumer. It’s not too late for Fiat to restore its brand equity, but they have so much on their plate I doubt it will be a priority. And in today’s market, I don’t know how they could genuinely distinguish a difference.

Another analogy might be the Chrysler brand. What makes a Chrysler different from a Dodge today, other than extra chrome on the grille? It’s not a coincidence that in Europe the same cars are sold in different markets as Chryslers and Lancias.

It is still possible. Best practice examples – VW and BMW as stratified brand entities. For no other reason than the pride of my Italian heritage do I hope Fiat can make sense of their disparate stable. But the great risk is a repetition of the DaimlerChrysler debacle or worse, as Rammstein has just said, BLMC.

From a product differentiation standpoint, I don’t think Chrysler brands are in nearly as bad shape today as when Plymouth was still around. Three versions of their minivan, two copies of the Neon that different only in badging.

The 300, Charger and Challenger may all be based on the same platform, but there’s quite a bit to differentiate them. The biggest product overlap IMO is with the Chrysler/Dodge minivans, and it’s no secret that Sergio wants to pare them down to one minivan model.

Having visited the Geneva car show last week, it is painfully obvious that reviving the Lancia brand is not Fiat’s priority. All they had on display were their Ypsilon supermini and a badge-engineered Voyager.

It really is a shame as the Delta Integrale remained as a halo car in the public perception long after it was retired. With a little effort and marketing savvy, Lancia could still be an aspirational brand.

Well, also, Lancia’s often-astounding technical innovation was obviously expensive and I don’t know that it ever made them much in the way of profit after the war. So, I can see that there wouldn’t necessarily be a strong incentive to go that way again.

True. I think the biggest issue today is that most cars are at parity. Of course there are still differences in quality and driver experience, but the spread is narrower. The difference between a base level VW and a Cadillac – in pure engineering terms – is not as great as it was in the past. And that goes for other distinctive makes such as Citroen and Lancia. You have to look at something like Tesla to find the sort of differentiation many brands enjoyed in the post-war belle époque. And as you have so rightly stated, creating that sort of real differentiation costs serious money.

Have you read of one of the largest factors in their post war stagnation? Exclusion from Marshall Plan reconstruction money because of some tenuous link to communism. Said sympathetic individual was actually opposing the fascist government at the time of the alleged offence, but memories are very short and apparently the powers that be liked black and white arguments.

In the late 1960s, I got hold of a British motoring magazine that included a particular writer’s brief takes on several marques. Granted, one man’s opinion, but he said, “Lancias, for what they do and are, cost too much.”

I believe the price of the Fulvia HF would have gotten you a 6-cylinder Mercedes at the time. The article says in so many words that a Fulvia buyer would be paying for the exquisite engineering and the driving experience, not for a lot of metal for the money.

Probably the most interesting thing about the Dedra is that the TIPO2/TIPO3 platform used for it (and the Tempra, the Alfa 155, and a long list of others) was an earlier attempt at the kind of modular platform VAG now has with their MQB architecture.

As I understand it, Fiat developed the TIPO2 after realizing that while the TIPO4 (Thema/Croma/164/Saab 9000) cars looked a lot a like, they ended up not sharing enough components to produce the desired cost savings. The idea with the smaller platform (of which I think the slightly bigger Dedra/Tempra/155 TIPO3 was basically a stretch) was to break the structure down into smaller modules so that each model would still share some financially useful number of pieces without all the cars having to look the same. That was the theory, at any rate.

The speed with which Lancia Betas could rust was amazing. I worked in a Fiat/Lancia dealership from 1978 to ’80. The factory was conducting a recall for rusty fuel tanks. Yet when the replacement tanks arrived, they were already rusting. Lancia would stamp the part number across the top of the tank, and rust would rapidly spread from there. Apparently no rust preventative was applied at all. And the parts prices! So many of the Betas parts were common to the 124 Sports, yet they cost many times more due to the Lancia shield on the box. If I remember right, the fuel pump for a 124 Spider was about $20. The very same part for a Beta was around $125. Ads for the Beta showed one parked next to an Olds Cutlass with the legend, “Lancia, the intelligent alternative”. Hmmm…

even high grades of quality alloy steel will rust almost instantly if left bare. corrosion prevention of steel is all about protection, protection, protection. Modern cars rust so slowly (and minimally) for two reasons: 1) body design does everything possible to eliminate crevices and seams where water/salt can collect and sit, making sure any enclosed areas have thorough drainage, and 2) vastly improved anti-corrosion dips. Proper drainage makes 2) even more effective by making sure all surfaces get properly coated. The Vega was famous for being one of the first GM cars to go through a total-body anticorrosion dip, but infamous for rusting because there were pockets in the body which the coating process couldn’t reach and left the steel bare.

Furthermore – the higher the quality of the steel is (in terms of carbon / alloying elements content) – the less resistant to corrosion it would be, as a rule. Only pure iron does not rust… (and, of course, stainless steel, too)

It doesn’t seem right that a company that prides itself on quality products would let themselves go downhill like that in terms of quality control. Unfortunately, it seems like that’s what’s going on the world over, as more of the products we use are being made overseas, in places like China, India, etc. 🙁

Rather than solve the problem and make a car durable enough for the British climate Lancia pulled out.If you can’t fix it **** it!Vauxhalls had a terrible reputation for corrosion but by the late 70s they were vastly improved

That kind of attitude is unforgivable. Under no circumstances should anyone cut corners. The same goes for when you build cars. You’re building something that transports people and/or cargo from one place to another. Drivers count on their cars to get them to their destination safely and reliably. And to have any part of the car come off during the drive, no way. That should *not* be tolerated.

Piss-poor quality control generally isn’t tolerated anymore. Lancia paid one hella high price for their “So what? We’re Lancia!” attitude. The Japanese were already demonstrating all across the world that even something as basic (and questionable dynamically) as a Datsun 120Y could still be screwed together with reasonable quality.

Jason

Posted March 18, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Piss-poor quality should never be tolerated, under any circumstances. While I appreciate the wish to save money, it should never be done at the expense of quality and reliability.

Well, Chinese cars built for export are crap… because cheapskates in other countries buy such crap-cars due to their cheapness. Cars, produced for China’s home market, are decent enough – but they are by far not dirt cheap. The Chinese can make almost anything, at almost any price – but not without a corresponding quality level adjustment.

If that isn’t fucked-up thinking, I don’t know what is. Piss-poor quality control should never be tolerated, no matter where you have the car built. Unfortunately, some car companies seem to like piss-poor quality.

I had a Lancia Bete HPE 2000ie in the 80s (in England). I bought when it was barely two years old but with almost 80,000 miles on it. I reasoned that a great deal of that must have been motorway driving, so that it should have been in reasonable shape mechanically and likely to have been a company car and therefore properly serviced. The seller was also willing to take my Austin Maxi as a trade-in, and even gave me a sensible price for it!
To date, that Lancia remains the favourite car of my driving career, a real drivers car, and surprisingly practical. It took four of us, plus luggage, around southern Ireland for a week without any complaints from either passengers or car, and when I bought a full-sized dishwasher it fitted in the back even in all its packaging and I could close the hatchback without any difficulty.
However, during my four or five years of ownership it blew the headgasket twice, and although I always washed it down immediately after any winter salting it was starting to show some rusting (but, honestly, nothing drastic) by the time I sold it.
As you rightly say, the press, and the fairly recent development of consumer watchdog programmes on the TV, gave Lancia a very hard time that they never recovered from.

The similarities with Citroen CX are well founded. Pininfarina pionieered the concept in 1968 with a BMC protoype and then Pininfarina designed the Lancia Gamma. The Gamma was (at first) co-developed with Citroen, so here is the connection. The smaller Beta just took these styling cues further.

Gem Whitman

Posted March 18, 2014 at 7:17 AM

Another lost opportunity for BMC,the Pininfarina was dropped and the wedge abomination was built instead.Most people saw it was a Land Crab in drag with all it’s faults still present and shoddily built.If they’d gone with the Pininfarina design and improved build quality it could have been a very different story

As late as the early part of the 2000’s, Lancia were still showing they could build interesting cars–look at the Thesis. I saw one when I was in Italy and instantly fell in love with the design. Controversial maybe, but to me, it just looked premium, and very Italian. Of course we never saw it here in the USA. The recent Delta hatchback was supposed to come over here as a Chrysler (or so went the rumor for a while) but that obviously never materialized either.

A few things to clear up here; firstly mild steel is….mild steel, it has no resistance to corrosion in any form. When alloyed with Tungsten, Vanadium, Nickel etc it gains qualities of strength, corrosion resistance or hardness but it looses its malleability.
Mild steel unlike cast iron has few impurities such as carbon and sulphur.
It is possible the Russian steel Fiat was buying in the ’70s had more impurities than European steel but with correct panel treatment this would not have heightened corrosion.
The issue was that almost all cars at that time had minimal or no internal rust protection. They rusted from the inside out. There are exceptions such as Volvo who treated panels to a phosphate bath and galvanized floors but even they will rust in time.
Most manufacturers, including Datsun, Alfa and Lancia produced cars which were poorly prepped and painted. Lancia were unlucky, the front subframes on early Beta saloons rusted very quickly and a certain British consumer TV programmed unfairly picked on them.
After the Beta fiasco Lancia put a lot of effort into improving rust issues and cars such as the Thema are amongst the most resistant of the time.

As for Lancia in general; first you must realise Lancias were very, very expensive hand made cars. Attention to detail and quality of materials surpassed any other maker. The last in house design was the Fulvia and it remains arguably their most attractive overall package. After Fiat took over in ’68 the game was really over. I think that the problem however wasn’t primarily to do with quality control or engineering prowess it was ironically for an Italian car, image. The things that made Lancias such sophisticated, elegant cars; a classic grille, slim pillars, curvaceous styling, beautiful door handles and interior knobs, slim chrome bumpers have slowly disappeared from modern cars.
Where Lancia has attempted to include such elements, they look awkward compared to the functional industrial design of a VW or a Volvo. In short, Lancia failed to produce a new design language and consequently will continue to fade away.

Really good article Roger. We got RHD Lancias, including the Dedra sedan but not the hatch, right until the end in 1994 (ours were UK-spec so when the UK waved goodbye so did we), but they were never big sellers. NZ’s best-known Fiat-Lancia specialist is here in my town, so I still occasionally see RHD Lancias around town though.
I was slightly disappointed in the Dedra when it came out – it seemed somewhat bland and characterless, especially when compared with the fascinating Tipo.

When in Italy last year, I was intrigued at all the Lancias that had been built post-94. So many I’d never seen! They were all very good looking cars too, quite different to the norm I thought – especially the Thesis (which I find great looking, but I do understand I’m in the minority there!). I found them all so attractive, inside and out, that I’d give them serious consideration if they were still available here. But of course with Fiat shuttering the brand, that will never be. So long Lancia, buona notte.

If I remember rightly Citroen and Lancia were due to share the hydropneumatic suspension on the Beta or and the future Citroen CX. But due to Citroen and Fiats alliance breaking down this was not to be.
Like the vehicle that eventually became the Citroen Visa was originally based on the Fiat 127.

Normally, I would not butt into this discussion, as I am (at least on the surface) one of the least-qualified persons to speak about a car brand – cars, after all, are not a typical female hobby and, truth be told, I am not the biggest car nut in the world. However, my fiancé is a dyed-in-the-wool lancista, already on his second Lancia (a 2009 turbocharged Lancia Delta 1.4, cosmetically identical to the one featured in the “Angels and Demons” film). We’ve talked so much about the brand, that I now know about as much as he does, and I do have an affinity for quirky, crazy brands. Plus, I do like Lancias. Most of them, anyway.

The rust scandal was concocted by the Daily Mirror in 1980 and by a British daytime TV presenter (similar to our disgusting Tatiana Stefanidou and Anna Drouza – yes, I’m from the fiscal underbelly of Europe). The reporting from these “paragons” of yellow “journalism” was riddled with half-truths and outright lies, yet no one at Lancia demanded that these people prove what they said. No one in the Fiat group protected Lancia. Under other circumstances, the fabricators of the rust scandal would have been brought to justice and made to pay ridiculous amounts of money. Yet, the Italians have always been lousy managers, completely incapable of protecting their brands.

That the British public bought the Mirror’s libel campaign hook, line and sinker says quite a lot, and what it says is not flattering at all. It would be like believing today what Faux News says. Yet…

At any rate, Lancia should have been Audi to Fiat’s VW. But the Agnellis never thought so. Lancia was acquired from the inept Carlo Pesenti in 1969, because Fiat’s rival in this was Ford. And Fiat could not afford having the American steamroller acquire this prestige brand and eclipse Fiat’s range of products from the market. Remember, Lancia was prestigious and upmarket. And Fiat, at the time, also tried to occupy similar market segments.

But why did Lancia get in so much trouble in the first place? How? Well, after Vincenzo Lancia died, the fate of the company was left to his widow and their son, Gianni. Gianni wanted to modernise and rationalise production, with parts commonality, economies of scale and whatnot. His mother vetoed his efforts. And he was too much of a eunuch to tell her “shut up mother, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.” He was also foppish; he knew the company was having very low profit margins because different versions of the same model shared so few common parts – especially mechanical ones) and because the production methods were antiquated and expensive. Yet, he indulged in a catastrophically costly racing programme that drove Lancia down.

Enter Pesenti. Carlo Pesenti, cement industrialist. He was supposed to rationalise things etc. He didn’t. He brought a semi-insane professor in: Antonio Fessia. From the first letter of his last name were the three models he developed named: Flaminia, Flavia, Fulvia. All of them magnificent, all of them fundamentally flawed. For starters, the low degree of parts commonality continued under Fessia. He was an academic after all, not an industrial engineer, so he didn’t care; he had that “other people are paying for my whims” mentality of the academia. No economies of scale were to be had under Fessia. Also, he was completely out of touch with reality. The Flaminia was woefully underpowered and was never given the sex-on-wheels bodyworks (save for the Touring ones) that would capture the imagination of the upwardly mobile clientele Lancia lusted after. The Fulvia berlina was the epitome of a car that sought anonymity, while Ford was going from commercial strength to commercial strength with the engine and trim level stratification of the Cortina (the quintessential fleet car of the ’60s and ’70s), further strengthening its position and brand awareness with the coke-bottle shape of this model’s third generation.

When Fiat and Ford duked it out over Lancia (with Fiat winning), Lancia was dead in the water financially. All it had in the cards was a face-lift for the Flavia, which was made possible, along with a rename to “2000”, under Fiat.

Fiat’s actions seemed erratic, at best. They destroyed the jigs and “lost” the blueprints for the Flaminia’s excellent chassis and engine. And some of Lancia’s engineers “disappeared” too. They replaced the Fulvia with the Beta. Little known fact, but the Beta was technically so far ahead of the competition that nothing could touch it. It had:

In 1972. What was the technological state of the competition back then?

When exactly did Audi, that “prestigious” marque, begin offering features 2-5 as standard equipment on its cars at all trim levels?

The Flavia was slated to be replaced by the Gamma – another flawed gem, with some ill-advised ideas that led to serious reliability issues.

The Flaminia? What would replace the Flaminia? Nothing. Fiat would not let Lancia have that market segment. They decided to emasculate the Dino’s V6 engine, mate it to a pathetic 3-speed auto ‘box and a homely boxy sedan body that wouldn’t be out of place adorning a Volga and call their offering the 130. A car destined to fail – and fail it did.

When it did fail, they said “oh well, let’s try with the Gamma.” Nice try. How would the Gamma compete against the Mercedes E and S class, or the BMW 5-series of that era? With what engines? It was front-wheel drive, there was no way it would accommodate anything over 2.5 litres under its bonnet. And even that engine was considered too big to be having only four cylinders by the buyers. So, the buyers opted for the german 6-cylinder offerings.

And then came the (fabricated) rust scandal, combined with the Gamma’s serious reliability issues (when you drive the power steering pump from the camshaft and not from the crankshaft, you’re guaranteed to snap the cambelt when starting with the steering wheel at an angle) and the Montecarlo’s brake problems…

Fiat’s people also didn’t understand marketing at all. They never understood that keeping the same model name from generation to generation gives buyers a feeling that you’ve succeeded with the previous one and are continuing, building on a successful theme. They never understood terms like “brand loyalty” at all. Plus, lancisti throughout the world have always been more fractionist than any communist would ever dream of being. The Registro Storico Talibans say that no post-Fiat Lancia is a true Lancia. Others (who are so old I’m surprised they haven’t boarded the skeletal ferryman’s dinghy yet) say that any Lancia that was made with left-hand drive is not a real Lancia. Others are just Delta Integrale fans. Others are Fulvia fans. But very few lancisti are really fans of the marque per se, and this is a sad fact.

But really, Fiat never really cared about Lancia. Both of them hailing from Turin, they have always seen Lancia as the one they could walk all over. They wanted Alfa Romeo and they were willing to even have a gender reassignment operation without anaesthesia to please it. So, in 1986, they bought the nearly-bankrupt firm from Milan. The first thing they did was hand over all of Lancia’s know-how to it, forbidding Lancia to use this know-how.

The four-wheel drive system we now know as the “Q4” is actually Lancia’s Integrale system. Yet, the Thema was not allowed to use it, the Kappa that succeeded it was not allowed to use it, and the same went for the Lybra, the second-generation Delta and the Thesis. This technology would become Fiat’s gift for Alfa Romeo. Not that it did much good, though, and I’ll tell you why.

Fiat’s managers decided to emasculate Lancia’s cars. Strip them of any sportiness, believing that they could transfer Lancia’s buyers to Alfa Romeo. Whoever let these managers graduate from grade school should be taken out in the street and shot, I say. Lancia’s buyers flocked to Audi and Mercedes-Benz. And Alfa Romeo was left catering to yobs with its 145. And then, when the second-generation Delta (which at least had one last glimpse of sportiness with the HF version) was discontinued, Lancia was left without a presence in the all-important C-segment for nearly a decade.

That’s what sealed its fate.

When the third-generation Delta came along, it was too late. Nice car, yes. But an atrocious Golf-derived twist-beam axle in the rear and not Lancia’s trademark take on the rear McPherson, the bracchi longitudinali guidati (the ones that have graced the Alfa 147/156/GT range, the 164, the Thema and so many other Italian mass-production cars and are now marketed as “multi-link” in the Giulietta, even though they are not) that Sergio Camuffo so lovingly designed? Whoever thought of that? What sacrilegious monster made this decision? Oh yes. Sergio “I’m the most successful CEO in the world, even though I haven’t reached any of the goals I’ve set” Marchionne. Yes. THAT guy. The guy who has vetoed sportier Lancias, even though people wanted them.

And, in 2003, production of the Fiat Barchetta-based Fulvia Coupe concept was also vetoed, even though people were begging for one.

Fiat destroyed Lancia. On purpose. For Alfa Romeo’s sake, as I wrote earlier. And because they’re too damned stupid to appreciate, understand and protect their portfolio.

If you love Lancia, don’t buy anything from the Fiat Group. Ever. Or, well, until they decide to get their act together, which is about as likely as finding a pile of hen’s teeth the size of the Himalayas.

Wow, Mona, for someone who feels least qualified, you sure do make a strong case. The subterfuge rings true, Alan Friedman’s ‘Agnelli and the Network of Italian Power’ details page after page of the type of corporate machinations you have described, although the book does not talk much of actual vehicles. The Alfa takeover was, again, more motivated by Fords nearly successful attempt to swallow the serpent, but the Medici-like Fiat group managed to win in the end.

The book does mention that Fiat bought Lancia for one lira per share and the assumption of debts. Please keep posting, your comment comes across as extremely well informed.

The last one had the audacity to tell us that the reduced production at Mirafiori (approximately 1/3 of that of Tychy) was because the workers at Mirafiori were “overpaid”.

But this was bullshit. The Tychy factory produced (back in 2010) the wildly popular Fiat 500.

The Mirafiori plant produced – back then – the commercial flop known as the Fiat Idea (incidentally, it was outsold by its posh cousin, the Lancia Musa), the Fiat Punto, the Fiat Grande Punto, a portion of the third-generation Deltas, and the frog-faced Alfa Romeo MiTo (which is essentially a Grande Punto that tries – and fails – to look like the Alfa 8C and has a few “look ma, I’m sporty” gimmicks).

All of these combined were 1/3 of the Fiat 500’s production.

What does this tell anyone who understands a few things about the era of lean manufacturing, JIT, and has access to people who have studied production management on a postgraduate level?

One thing: That the cars produced at Mirafiori were not popular and that the car produced at Tychy is.

Let’s extrapolate from this, shall we? From a strategic management viewpoint, it all means that the person(s) who OK’d production of the cars produced at Mirafiori should have been fired, because these cars were all commercial failures (as much as I love our Delta, the sheer idiocy of people like Olivier Francois and Sergio Marchionne meant it is neither fish nor fowl and, thus doesn’t have an audience).

So, were the workers overpaid? No. Cocaine-snorter Lapo Elkann (remember his 2005 debacle when he was extracted from someone’s apartment in comatose condition due to a huge cocaine overdose during a rather sordid party?) is, even though he has marketing nous. Marchionne is overpaid, and his name should become synonymous with failure.

Another problem with Lancia: Its ’70s, ’80s and ’90s managers tried way too hard to please old coots who were 40 years old when their beloved Aurelias were in production. They didn’t try to gain the affection of dashing, young, upwardly-mobile entrepreneurs, execs and family men. They didn’t even understand that aging top execs (the people who buy the big Mercedes and BMWs) pretend to be young and hip and cool. What did they do instead? They gave us the Lybra. Yes, it was a very well-built car (much more so than its BMW competitor, actually), but it looked old. It didn’t have the retro-cool factor. It got retro wrong.

Now, I’m going to be offensive and blunt in the extreme. Lancia’s managers tried to seduce the following audiences:

The only reasonably masculine recent Lancia is the Delta, but the lack of a four-wheel drive version with a truly powerful engine (a halo version) crippled it. So did the horrid, Golf-like twist-beam axle. Plus, no one at Fiat/Alfa Romeo/Lancia knew exactly what it was and who would buy it.

They failed, of course. Hipster girls preferred the Fiat 500 (no one thought of doing a Lancia/Autobianchi A112 revival…) and the MINI. Gay men opted for the Peugeot 206cc and the Mercedes-Benz SLK. And septugenarians opted for BMWs and Audis, because they made them look younger (or so they thought). Oh, and for Mercedes, because they’re the default, government-issue, geriatric doctor-approved prestige car.

So, much like several British “premium” brands did in the ’70s, Lancia dies now because a large part of the clientele Fiat’s top execs targeted is either people who don’t care about Lancia (and cars) at all, or so old that they’re desperately trying to fool themselves and others into believing they’re younger (if they’re not already pining for the fjords).

hehehe. Lapo Elkann is certainly no Hank the deuce. I didn’t think he was still involved apart from collecting dividends to fuel his interest in transmissions.

To be honest, Mona, my knowledge of cars drops off precipitously from the 80s onward so I can’t address the many issues you bring up. I will contextualise my perspective, though.

My father is Italian born, and moved to a better life in Australia in the late sixties. He still has some dealings in Italy so I have a relatively close understanding of things. It is telling that for Italians, Berlusconi represented stability. With the fractured party system, this democracy has been sustained since WWII pretty much through ‘greasing the wheels of capitalism’. Until I read the Friedmann book and understood the true influence of the cabal led by Cuccia and Mediobanca, I didn’t realise what a closed system it actually was. More recently I read ‘Gomorrah’ which just has me despairing. The machinations you talk of unfortunately don’t surprise me.

To make light of things, just-in-time for Italians means we’ll have it ready for you when it pleases us.

I have some expertise in marketing, so I would suggest that a car marketed correctly to gay men is not such a bad idea; look at modern fashion at the moment and its easy to understand their significant role as ‘influencers’. Ditto: hipster girls who are really just the Heathers of today. As you touch on though, marketing an image is one thing, delivering a product to meet that promise is another.

Not sure about the A112. I think it looks too similar to the Mini for a modern interpretation to be sufficiently different. I remember them fondly from family trips in the 70s, but I don’t think it has the brand equity of a Beetle, Mini or 500.

Having an avatar here indicates that you intend to stay around. I’d be really interested in your perspective on the Lancia/Citroen JV discussed in this article.

Regarding the Lancia/Citroen JV, I do know that certain high-profile classic car journalists got their facts wrong. They said that it was canned because De Gaulle said “non”. The problem is, however, that the chronologies don’t add up, as De Gaulle was no longer in charge.

Re: The link you gave. It includes a comment by a reader named Brian. It contains a factual error. Namely, the Gamma’s engine was not designed by Ferrari. It was an overbored version of the Flavia’s boxer, but this time with overhead camshafts rather than being an OHV affair.

Don Andreina

Posted April 8, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Yep, checked out your blog and there’s not much there about automotive. Still, your comments have been relevant (if slightly impassioned) and you have revealed yourself as a (latent?) car person.

I rented an Autobianchi A112 and drove it around the narrow winding roads of Rhodes[Greece] back in 1981.A goodlooking car with superb seats,luxurious interior,sparkling performance,brilliant steering and handling and a very comfortable ride.I wanted to take it home to Australia.The A112 was light years ahead of the same year Mini.

Had a 70s’ Beta Saloon that must have been only six years old. Beautiful machine. Fast, quiet and comfortable. Tramrailed (quite literately) on a right hand bend late one night, over corrected and steamed into the guard rail on the left hand side of the one way road. Came to in the passenger seat with the gearbox inches away from my face. No harm done but the car was totalled. Went to the police pound in the morning to collect some bits out of it and was horrified to discover that the car was rusting away across both front wings, top side and inside; the entire front end was sitting at a 45 degree to the rest of the body. Very glad I crashed it then and not later at high speed.

This simple fact remains that in WRC over the last forty years Lancia have dominated the sport, won more manufacturer’s Championships, more title and more races than any other make .
Ford, Subaru, Toyota don’t even come close
The record stands today even though they don’t race!
Their race history is remarkable in endurance racing .

The Delta Integrale is said to be the best rally car ever made and the choice of so many ex-rally drivers.
Engineering masterpieces are just part of their history, turbo engine as mass produced cars was their idea, turbo-supercharged engine and the Tri-flux racing engine.
Now there is an engine americans will not know about?